Questions (Sincere, not Snarky) You'd Like Answered: Democrats Edition

[puddleglum]

@Sherrerd

I couldn’t disagree more (about all of this). Pointing out how easily cynical people can use courteous introductory remarks as “proof” of being friendly toward any particular audience, is doing the opposite of “admitting that speeches are a legitimate issue.” As a bonus, it would highlight how ludicrous is the accusation that such speeches contain content “embarrassing” to Clinton.

She took their money and she told them what she thinks. If she began with anything along the lines of ‘thanks for inviting me; I’m sure you here all work very hard at what you do and you certainly make a major contribution to the economy of this city’, that would be purely standard, conventional politeness. It utterly fails to be “proof” of corruption.

For some reason this strikes me as hilarious. I’m trying to picture whichever candidate you happen to fancy, winning your approval by doing his “emoting” without words …

The wise politician knows that picking the right battlefields is more important than how well you actually fight. Bernie has the advantage in the area of money and corruption. If Hillary fights on that battlefield she loses, if the fight is about practicalities and identity politics she wins.
Most of communication is non verbal. A good politician could make everyone in the room like them while reading the phone book. They have a way of projecting warmth, interest, and good humor using tone of non verbal communication that is amazing to watch. Most people can tell who a good speaker is or who wins a debate with the sound turn downed. On the other hand watch Hillary speak in front of a black church and her attempts to pander are so obvious they are embarrassing.